Those strata lines are laid down by the help of the pull of gravity, which causes the strata to be conformed to the shape of the planet's surface.

Because gravity pulls toward the surface of a planet, strata are not laid down vertically (as they show up on Vesta and Phobos) because the force of gravity naturally lays them down horizontally onto the curved surface of the planet.

In the original post we discussed the Exploded Planet Hypothesis (EPH) or theory (EPT) that a planet originally existed in the gap area between Mars and Jupiter:

But is it a chunk of the now missing planet which once filled the great gap between Mars and Jupiter, where now there are only asteroids remaining in the junk yard of rock and debris we call the asteroid belt?

A now missing planet which exploded and left the chunk in the photo to be caught by the gravity of Mars, and to then become a moon of Mars?

The EPH or EPT is an old idea which has been subscribed to by some good astronomers, who were of course criticized by their fellow astronomers because they did not follow the crowd to accept the theory pronounced "okay" by the government.

(ibid). These non-horizontal strata lines shown in the photos above indicate that Vesta and Phobos could be chunks of a large planet that once existed in what is now called "the asteroid belt" between Mars and Jupiter.

If the Earth exploded and that island was blown into space, in time it would wear down, dust would smooth it out some, fragmentation would tend to make it more round, and the strata lines on it over time would morph to then look similar to those on Phobos and Vesta in the two photos above.

A graphic to the right shows the island in black and white and rotated as it would do while floating in space.

This gives some indication of how the surface of a planet containing strata would appear after being blown into space as huge chunks.

Some of those chunks would be as large as a thousand miles wide, while others would be as small as an island a few hundred feet across.

That is exactly how the asteroid belt is situated today.

A planet originally located in that asteroid belt gap area would be in accord with the Titius-Bode Law of Planetary Spacing, because, according to that law a planet should be there, but only debris in the form of asteroids is there now.

Hence the Exploded Planet Hypothesis, as explained and argued a bit more here.

In closing, note that the EPH is sometimes criticized merely because establishment scientists don't know how a planet could explode.

Let me say that evidence of an explosion is not necessarily evidence of the type of explosion that produced it, how the subject item exploded, nor does it have to be evidence of the specific explosive device or mechanism.

For instance, a car blown to smithereens has fenders, doors, wheels, engine, and other parts strewn about, but they are not in and of themselves always conclusive proof of anything but an explosion.

That is because the debris of the car could be caused by any one of several types of explosions, or could be caused by any number of types of devices or methods.

The explosion itself could have been a bomb (in the trunk, under the hood) the gas tank exploding, getting hit by a military tank at high speed, a tornado direct hit, or simply caused by driving over a land mine.

Likewise, when we look at the rubble of the car, or the rubble of the asteroids, we can't say there was no explosion simply because we don't know how an explosion happened.

To the same effect, the residue in the form chunks of debris (with strata) we call asteroids is sufficient evidence of the explosion.

So, lets look closer for petrified organic matter, and the like, then perhaps look for evidence as to specifically how the explosion took place , since, (due to the debris) we already know that an explosion took place.

(c) Copyright

All original material is copyrighted by Dredd Blog. You may quote or use the material so long as there is a link back to Dredd Blog for every post you use. This is, among other things, to verify that no Dredd Blog text was changed. It must remain the same, no editing. Note that Dredd Blog has no commercial purpose. If it so happens that Dredd Blog may quote copyrighted material from other writers, it is only for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research."Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include—

--the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;

--the nature of the copyrighted work;

--the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole;

--and the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors." (17 U.S. Code § 107)